New Richmond Arena

[eandslee]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

There is retail planned on each of those blocks. Vertically integrated buildings with office are harder to pull off in Richmond than you might think. 

Apparently so - it was WVS that tried to do it at the Locks and failed (Centennial Tower also comes to mind).  I just wasn’t sure whether it’s difficult to do or if it vwas WVS’ ineptitude.  I keep reading that there is a shortage of Class A office space downtown...is it too risky to build speculatively?  You’d think the market was ripe for this kind of development. 

[wrldcoupe4]

Banks won’t finance spec office in Richmond, so it doesn’t get built. 

[Brent114]

Bye bye terrible arena plan...

 

http://bluevirginia.us/2018/12/the-last-gasp-of-massive-resistance-richmonds-2019-coliseum-scheme

 

in related news, there was an anti arena (and pipeline) march down Broad Street Friday evening.  The deal stinks and the public has taken notice. 

[cbl1]

Where is the report on this massive public outcry you speak of?

Edited December 9, 2018 by cbl1

[vaceltic]

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

Bye bye terrible arena plan...

 

http://bluevirginia.us/2018/12/the-last-gasp-of-massive-resistance-richmonds-2019-coliseum-scheme

 

in related news, there was an anti arena (and pipeline) march down Broad Street Friday evening.  The deal stinks and the public has taken notice. 

Also raising questions about the “market analysis” this whole sham is based on....and why I fully support a commission separate from the Stoney administration’s projections:

http://m.richmondfreepress.com/news/2018/nov/29/coliseums-success-raises-new-questions-about-need-/

The Coliseum already hosts more annual events (92) than all other comparable Virginia arenas combined. Even more than DCs arena! WOW! Now, we all know this is patently false, which basically renders the entire Hunden Partners Analysis a dumpster fire.

Edited December 9, 2018 by vaceltic

[drayrichmond]

I'm sorry but that is a very problematic article you've shared. I'm just going to point out a few examples. First off, this isn't exactly an unbiased look at the issues with subtitles like "field of schemes".

The article attacks park renovations to Kanawha Plaza and Monroe park, basically lamenting the renovations as an assault on the homeless. Comparing budgets for the parks and homeless services, essentially saying we cannot put money into our parks if we spend less than that on homeless services. We are not allowed to have nice parks if there are homeless people.

Another classic, is the use of "behind closed doors negotiations", "secret", "kept out of public view"; classic scare tactic. I'm sorry but that's how negotiations work. I'm not going to negotiate a sensitive deal with many players and interests out in the open. Nobody would negotiate with a city that did that, way to much liability. 

The figures are laughable. They don't use any actual data, its just a graph of "look how bad it could be" with lots of red ink to make sure you get it's a bad thing. The best they could do there is "anonymous developers saying it wouldn't work". 

Quoting Hild on the wanting to move the homeless shelter to Manchester, brilliant to get the opinion on a homeless shelter in Manchester from the guy who owns most of Manchester.

The biggest glaring issue with this article is the use of Paul Goldman throughout the article. This man is not a champion for Richmond Schools. Everything he has done has been calculated political maneuvering. 

The article leans hard on the Paul Goldman School Referendum, which was majorly flawed from the outset and designed to embarrass and put the current administration in a difficult position. 

To quote the article: "An October 2017 poll showed that 64 percent of Richmonders supported paying more in taxes for schools", but wait the referendum they keep bring up stipulated that taxes cannot be raised to "fix" the schools. If any of you guys have a fix for schools without raising taxes I'd love to here it. Oh and you can't cut any other city services or else there would be an uproar. Paul Goldman did this so he could say, "No I'm the champion for schools, I do everything for schools, and the Mayor and City Council don't do anything", without actually offering any solutions. 

And oh what's this another referendum!! "Goldman himself had four aces, and he knew it. In mid-October 2018, he announced that he would pursue a second ballot initiative," 

This article basically boils down to the "What about schools!!" argument we hear on any project the city tries to do, just with more gusto. 

[vaceltic]

Another example that the city can’t get out it’s own way, Richmond could have had a headquarters hotel for the convention center in 2005, according to this Style Weekly article from 2007. At the Blues Armory, no less!

“The need for hotel rooms next to the convention center isn't lost on P.C. Amin, the Richmond area's largest hotel operator with 18 hotels in his local portfolio and another seven on the way.

Amin says he's been looking to build an upscale hotel in downtown Richmond for about five years, but hasn't been able to find a suitable location. Most recently, he'd hoped to build a Hilton Garden Inn in Jackson Ward. The Richmond Redevelopment & Housing Authority opted to sell the land — which sits between First and Third streets, just a couple of blocks away from the convention center — to another developer. Trammell Crow Co. is planning to develop the site, which will be called Jackson Place, into a mixed-use residential community. According to the plans it will include a hotel. The project is scheduled for completion in 2010.

Amin was also interested in putting a full-service, upscale hotel just east of the Richmond Coliseum, replacing the Sixth Street food court, but preserving the old Blues Armory. But that plan was also rejected by the city.

Amin recently ran into Mayor Doug Wilder at the groundbreaking ceremony for his new full-service, 250-room Hilton Conference Center and Spa in Short Pump, expected to open in summer of 2008. He says the mayor asked him when he was going to build a similar hotel in Richmond. 

"I said I've been trying to do this for years," Amin says, with a chuckle. City officials told him they were only interested in a full-service hotel in Jackson Ward, and the Hilton Garden Inn — a lower-tier Hilton brand — didn't qualify.

So it unnerved Amin when he discovered, via a legal notice from Hilton last spring, that the developers of the Miller & Rhoads hotel were building a Hilton Garden Inn across the street from the convention center. Because Amin owns Hiltons in the Richmond market, Hilton must notify him of any new franchises coming to the market where he operates.

Many people thought the developers of the Miller & Rhoads were planning the same kind of upscale Hilton that Amin is building in Short Pump. That appears not to be the case, according to the notice sent to Amin. The developers, ECI Development Services and Historic Restorations Inc., out of New Orleans, have refused to discuss the subbrand of their Hilton, saying only that it will be full-service. It is scheduled to be completed by fall 2008, says Michael Laing, managing officer of ECI. 

Amin says he doesn't want to be seen as being critical of the city, or the Miller & Rhoads developers, but simply wants the opportunity to build an upscale hotel in Richmond. Ironically, the city spent years trying to find a developer who would develop the Miller & Rhoads site into a hotel. It was the primary reason former City Manager Calvin Jamison and city business leaders recruited Chicago developer Gary Beller. He established ECI Development Services in Richmond, which was awarded more than $2.18 million in fees to issue the bonds and manage the improvements and streetscapes on Broad Street. Beller, in exchange for managing the contract work, would invest his own capital into the former Miller & Rhoads.

"I'm a Richmonder. I've always desired to do something downtown," says Amin, who recently bought the Quality Inn at Second and Cary streets, which he's turning into a Holiday Inn Express. He says he recently offered $6 million to buy less than an acre between Eighth and Ninth streets, at Canal and Cary, but the landowner, Dominion Resources, declined his offer. 

If Amin had been approached by city leaders five years ago, an upscale Hilton downtown would be up and running by now, says Chip Markow, a commercial real estate agent who represents Amin. "It would be a flagship, something that his company and Richmond could be proud of," Markow says. "He wouldn't have any reservations about making it one of the finest hotels that anyone could venture into."”

[Brent114]

3 hours ago, cbl1 said:

Where is the report on this massive public outcry you speak of?

Where are your reading skills?  I didn’t use the word massive.  Nor did I call it an outcry.  

The publuc is staring to focus on the details and opposition is rightfully mounting. 

I live on Broad Street. I saw the march Friday evening. 

[cbl1]

Must not have been many reporters.   So it was a multiple "Protest everything everywhere"  march … guess they needed to be very inclusive to get people out.

My reading skills are just fine if there is anything to read.

Edited December 9, 2018 by cbl1

[cbl1]

Umm....no.   I see a a link to a smear piece that has nothing to do with demonstration.  Yea thanks!

Edited December 10, 2018 by cbl1

[Asace88]

12 hours ago, Brent114 said:

Two links were provided.  Read away honey. 

Brent, don't be condescending.

I've tried to stay out of this thread because I'm tired of the same old anti-development arguments but I agree with cb1.  This article looks like it was written by an angry teenager for a high school newspaper.  

[meegwell]

On 12/9/2018 at 6:57 PM, Brent114 said:

Two links were provided.  Read away honey. 

 

Brent you're not done trolling here yet?  Stop being condescending and grow up.  That article you got all excited about is a complete joke as many have already pointed out.

[meegwell]

On 12/9/2018 at 1:02 PM, Brent114 said:

Bye bye terrible arena plan...

 

http://bluevirginia.us/2018/12/the-last-gasp-of-massive-resistance-richmonds-2019-coliseum-scheme

 

in related news, there was an anti arena (and pipeline) march down Broad Street Friday evening.  The deal stinks and the public has taken notice. 

So it is all about your politics as I suspected.

 

See, I don't even really come here to contribute anymore because Brent411 is turning this place into Facebook.  It's a shame.

[Brent114]

How is it trolling to post articles about  the financing for this proposal?  

I object to this project for  many reasons.  I think you’ll find that I’m very pro development in general though. 

The condescension started when I was accused of being hysterical. I don’t agree with everything in the article (again, you’ll find that I was very pro park renovation).  But it appears that attendance figures and revenue have been grossly exaggerated while the vitality and usefulness of the area in its current state are diminished.  And there’s the history of shady land deals in the immediate area (with quotes from people on record regarding said deals). 

The nunbers are fishy.  The expectations are unrealistic.  I honestly don’t understand the enthusiasm on this board for it.  Pretty much everything about is in bad form (from financing to the aesthetics).   It is childish to support it because shiny things and tower cranes are cool.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by Brent114

[vaceltic]

While Brent and I are the obvious naysayers on this specific development, why should the Richmond development thread posts be limited to cheerleading squad rah-rah comments, with the only exceptions allowed for when the group doesn’t like the height, shape, or material color of the construction?

We’re arguing about deep, serious issues: significant taxpayer money and generational ramifications to the City’s flexibility to administer essential city services for decades if this passes. Ramifications that will remain long after the politicians and decision-makers have moved on. But many Richmond residents will remain, dealing with the impacts of these decisions, whether right or wrong. Raising concerns about that is not “anti-development” to do so. This should be a welcoming place to raise such questions amongst people whose shared value is being passionate about Richmond’s prosperity and success.

Edited December 13, 2018 by vaceltic

[eandslee]

It’s not that we don’t welcome different points of view on this forum - we do...or at least, I do.  I respect yours and Brent’s opinions, it’s just that the rest of us think that you two are wrong and feel that your views are based on inaccurate sources (like those posted above).  There are many who even choose not to post their opinions here, though I know they have them - they just choose not to get involved.  So, unless you are just belligerent and being obstructive, I welcome your opinions no matter which side they fall.  The rest of us can still express our opinions as well.   It’s okay sometimes to agree to disagree. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by eandslee

[cbl1]

 I felt I was being belittled in fact for being pro-arena.   After posting questions on people saying things like "Bye Bye Area plan".   That's not a debate that's a "you all are stupid everyone knows it - look at this terrific article … we are so much smarter than you - look you can't even read"

Edited December 13, 2018 by cbl1

[wrldcoupe4]

On 12/9/2018 at 2:47 PM, vaceltic said:

 

Brent  /. VaCeltic 

What’s your vision for this area of downtown?

Edited December 13, 2018 by wrldcoupe4

[vaceltic]

11 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Brent  /. VaCeltic 

What’s your vision for this area of downtown?

I’m easy. Private development at the maximum density permitted by land use. I doubt there’s much density allowed around there with an “institutional” land use designation. So first step would be for the planning department to change the zoning. Then, the City sells off its land holdings. Then, whatever residential, commercial, retail, recreational use developers proposed within the zoning criteria can go create it. City collects taxes to allocate to services annually based on the needs of that fiscal year.

Once the Richmond convention center is 30-years old and dingy (maybe in 10 years? A not-too-distant future, repeat the zoning process there, demolish it, sell the land, and reconnect Jackson Ward to downtown with similar residential, commercial, retail, recreational uses private developers will take a chance on. 

It isn’t hard to do if the City relinquishes control. That is the hard part and why things are a mess over there in the first place. 

No Coliseum or Convention Center in my vision, unless a developer wants to take a chance on either, which they wouldn’t. The Convention Center is the size of two Wal-Marts jammed in the middle of downtown generating zero tax revenue. Unlike a Wal-Mart, it has entire days with zero activity day or night and sucks on the city coffers as we speak.

[cbl1]

What would drive this private development?   What would entice them to invest in the coliseum area as it currently stands?  That is the problem.

[vaceltic]

The City. I explained my rationale in several prior posts. Developers have been rebuffed by the city to build here before. Neighborhood examples: Manchester, Scott’s Addition, Church Hill, etc etc....

Edited December 14, 2018 by vaceltic

[wrldcoupe4]

Would you displace city operations like the current proposal or leave them in place? 

[vaceltic]

If the buildings are beyond repair, yes, but keep services around where the city hall is. At bare minimum, they shouldn’t be on the edges of the municipality. With BRT, there are transit hubs where some services can concentrate nearby, but who knows if properties are currently available for lease or purchase. 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by vaceltic

[cbl1]

so use the cities current operating budget to try and revitalize the area vs. relying on future tax base increases?  In order to entice development in area no one currently wants to develop.   If I were a developer I would focus more on the grace street area south of Broad if I were having to go it alone without something to pull me north.

[vaceltic]

Use the current planning staff that works at City Hall to zone the area to an appropriate density, setting the conditions appropriate for developers to want to build. They can’t build if the City won’t sell the land.

The planning staff just changed zoning in Monroe Ward to increase density there and have done so in Scott’s Addition and Manchester as well. That is why there are so many cool development concepts being proposed for those areas - only a matter of time before Monroe Ward does as well.

Henrico is currently doing this west of Scott’s Addition in preparation for a similar surge of developer interest there.